If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which he/she has never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them.

The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:

Quote:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary.

How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real.

If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc.

There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.

Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.

When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyze any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity -- there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist.

As it pertains to a specific religion, then, yes, a separation of church and state is appropriate. I don't believe I've denied that. I'm just merely suggesting that the laws of our society did not just evolve with us. Feelings of empathy and justice are not the result of random chance.

The absolute wall between the state and religion (in general, not a specific religion) is hard to achieve and I dare say impossible.

It is as long as people chose to ignore it~

__________________The Trump campaign and Black Lives Matter movement are perfect for each other. Both sides filled with easily led and angry nitwits convinced they are victims~

(1)As it pertains to a specific religion, then, yes, a separation of church and state is appropriate. I don't believe I've denied that.(2) I'm just merely suggesting that the laws of our society did not just evolve with us. (3)Feelings of empathy and justice are not the result of random chance.

(4)The absolute wall between the state and religion (in general, not a specific religion) is hard to achieve and I dare say impossible.

1) No, that's not what the Constitution says.
2) They were derived from many sources, including the (Native American) Iroquois.
3) Morals and ethics are not dependent upon religion.
4) It's far from impossible, and it's necessary to a free society.

1) No, that's not what the Constitution says.
2) They were derived from many sources, including the (Native American) Iroquois.
3) Morals and ethics are not dependent upon religion.
4) It's far from impossible, and it's necessary to a free society.

I think there is some confusion here based on my poor choice of words. I've been using religion as a catch all word to mean a belief in a creator, not an institution created by man, which is how i believe you are reading it. So to your points:

1) When I said 'specific' I was referring to an institutional belief system, not a moral code, which has its roots in a creator (I contend).
2)by 'us' I mean us as humans not us as Americans
3)agreed, but they don't just happen
4)for each religion, yes. Our system of laws is not entirely the result of evolution, however.

__________________The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants

I think there is some confusion here based on my poor choice of words. I've been using religion as a catch all word to mean a belief in a creator, not an institution created by man, which is how i believe you are reading it. So to your points:

1) When I said 'specific' I was referring to an institutional belief system, not a moral code, which has its roots in a creator (I contend).
2)by 'us' I mean us as humans not us as Americans
3)agreed, but they don't just happen
4)for each religion, yes. Our system of laws is not entirely the result of evolution, however.

1) OK, I was just pointing out that the amendment was not intended only to discourage a specific state religion.
2) Our laws did evolve with us humans. We created them. If you choose to believe that divine inspiration moved men to create law then of course you are free to hold that belief.
3) Sure. I was teasing you with my RNA comment.
4) As long as we keep the authority of the Church away from the power of the State we have a chance.

I think there is some confusion here based on my poor choice of words. I've been using religion as a catch all word to mean a belief in a creator, not an institution created by man, which is how i believe you are reading it. So to your points:

1) When I said 'specific' I was referring to an institutional belief system, not a moral code, which has its roots in a creator (I contend).
2)by 'us' I mean us as humans not us as Americans
3)agreed, but they don't just happen
4)for each religion, yes. Our system of laws is not entirely the result of evolution, however.

What is it about separation or church and state that confuses you? Reword your beliefs, explain them all you wish. It does not change the fact this country was founded giving you the right to believe how you wish. However the government was not designed to endorse, condone or reject any belief. As in neutral~

__________________The Trump campaign and Black Lives Matter movement are perfect for each other. Both sides filled with easily led and angry nitwits convinced they are victims~

What is it about separation or church and state that confuses you? Reword your beliefs, explain them all you wish. It does not change the fact this country was founded giving you the right to believe how you wish. However the government was not designed to endorse, condone or reject any belief. As in neutral~

I'm not a theocrat. I just recognize the role of divine inspiration ( thank you listopencil) in everything inherently human, including government.

__________________The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants

As a matter of fact I predict that 2012 will be a disappointing season for the KC Chiefs.

And you would be wrong.

Yay for in the 12th year of the second millennia the reign of terror which had cast a shadow over the kingdom of Arrowhead for four years came to an end. The architect of destruction and tyranny became detached from the people and met his demise from his own doings of arrogance and ego. Along with his puppets, they were removed from power because of the bravery and determination which encompassed the uprising and rebellion of the people. Then upon season's end the table will be set and the savior will come forth through the established rituals of selection. He will lead the kingdom out of darkness and into the light and promise of success that comes from his abilities. And it will be good.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

I'm curious. How did men create law if not by some form of divine inspiration? At what point in our biological evolution did we diverge from all other animals in this regard?

I'm really not asking this to instigate anything, I just wonder what your view on it is.

We didn't diverge from all animals in this. Here's and easy example. Your dog knows that it's not supposed to get into the trash can. You come home from work and your dog has knocked it over. Big mess in the kitchen. Look at your dog. Some dogs are stupid and will just look at back at you with a "Derp?" face. Otherwise you will see remorse, guilt and fear. The dog knows it has done something wrong. If you treat it in a certain way you can train it (most dogs) not to knock over the can anymore. In effect you instituted morals in your dog. He knows right from wrong and makes the decision not to "commit evil."

I could give you a lot of examples of moral/ethical behavior in animals but I have to go to bed. Work in the AM. I'll be back tomorrow.

We didn't diverge from all animals in this. Here's and easy example. Your dog knows that it's not supposed to get into the trash can. You come home from work and your dog has knocked it over. Big mess in the kitchen. Look at your dog. Some dogs are stupid and will just look at back at you with a "Derp?" face. Otherwise you will see remorse, guilt and fear. The dog knows it has done something wrong. If you treat it in a certain way you can train it (most dogs) not to knock over the can anymore. In effect you instituted morals in your dog. He knows right from wrong and makes the decision not to "commit evil."

I could give you a lot of examples of moral/ethical behavior in animals but I have to go to bed. Work in the AM. I'll be back tomorrow.

Great example for GOD in there, a teaching moment for sure.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

We didn't diverge from all animals in this. Here's and easy example. Your dog knows that it's not supposed to get into the trash can. You come home from work and your dog has knocked it over. Big mess in the kitchen. Look at your dog. Some dogs are stupid and will just look at back at you with a "Derp?" face. Otherwise you will see remorse, guilt and fear. The dog knows it has done something wrong. If you treat it in a certain way you can train it (most dogs) not to knock over the can anymore. In effect you instituted morals in your dog. He knows right from wrong and makes the decision not to "commit evil."

I could give you a lot of examples of moral/ethical behavior in animals but I have to go to bed. Work in the AM. I'll be back tomorrow.

Two issues come to mind. 1) Supposing the dog knows he does wrong, that feeling is still taught to him by humans. Had it not been for training, that dog would have made a mess in the kitchen and gone about his day no matter how intelligent of a dog he is. 2) The dog knows he did wrong because of the reaction from the human and the poor consequences that follow. Human gets angry; dog gets put in kennel or outside or hit w/ newspaper or whatever standard dog training is; kennel/outside is not comfortable, human angry voice is disturbing, and hit w/ newspaper feels bad.

But a dog cannot tell you why it is bad to make the mess in the kitchen. He has no idea the values that are associated with whatever it is humans think bad, whether it be making a mess in the kitchen or eating the 2 mo old child.

Jesus was Jewish. His followers split off to form their own church. They both believe in Jehovah, the one true God.

Muslims believe that when God asked Abraham to sacrifice one of his sons that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed while the Jews believe it was Isaac. God at the last minute told Abraham to sacrifice a goat instead. The Muslims believe that Abraham then went to Saudi Arabia with Ishmael where they remade the Kabah, the holiest artifact in Islam. Ishmael became first of the Arab race. The Jews believe Abraham went with Isaac to found the nation of Israel. Islam does not mention what happened to Isaac.

Despite the fact that they believe different things, they are all worshiping the same monotheistic God, whether he is called Jehovah, God or Allah.

I used to think the same thing. And historically, the sentiment rings true. This is what Peter says in Acts 3, when he references the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And of course, the Christian and New Testament ties to the Hebrew Scriptures are innumerable.

However, theologically, it is not true. There are fundamental differences in the conception of this God that they cannot be the same. Jews, Muslims, and Christians cannot all be correct about the particularly important facets of God. Each religion sees their God through their prism, looking back to the Hebrew Scriptures and seeing their God. But looking forward and presently, they each worship a God that has important differences from the others' formation of God.

That is one of the reasons the Catholics claim such large numbers. As an infant they sprinkle water on your head and claim you as a catholic. I like millions of others have never endorsed or agreed to this contract but the catholic church still claims us as members~

There's no contract. There's no official Catholic Member Directory where the Church claims people. The Catholic Church doesn't claim members, and unless you've registered through a parish, you don't officially count for much. It does claim, however, that your baptism was a nice little deal your parents gave you whether you realize it or not.